Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[DrSomnath999]

CHINA'S WS 15 ENGINE PICS

 

[antonius123]

su-35 vs pakfa

From this perspective, Pakfa seems like the Silent Flanker

 

[DrSomnath999]

 

[Martian2]

Reply to J-20 and Rafale canards comparison

1. The J-20 Mighty Dragon does not need a saw-tooth design at the rear of the canard, because the J-20 canard is made of composite material, shaped to deflect radar away from transmitter, RAM-coated (which Rafale lacks), and the canard-fuselage intersection is specifically designed to deflect radar. In conclusion, the J-20 canard is very stealthy.

The claim that the J-20 canard gap is a corner reflector is not true. Go ahead and try to draw a ray trace diagram to show a corner reflector. You cannot. It is a surface discontinuity as a tiny radar source. This kind of surface discontinuity is also seen in the T-50/Pak-Fa's airfoil gap and main wing control surfaces for the F-22, J-20, and T-50/Pak-Fa.

In my opinion, the Rafale canard design is clearly inferior. The Rafale built a thick structure to avoid a continuity gap. The round Rafale nose (which is not shaped) and the attendant large canard bridge are terrible for stealth. I think they designed it this way for structural integrity. [I'll label the problems on the Rafale later tonight when I return]

T-50/Pak-Fa Front Airfoil Gap Back-end is not shaped to deflect radar

T-50/Pak-Fa front airfoil gap will reflect radar when it bounces off the back end.

Another look at T-50/Pak-Fa radar-reflecting back-end of front airfoil gap.

Notice the subtle angled curve of the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard back-end to deflect radar.

----------

2. J-20 slightly-rounded LERX is a minor criticism. It can be easily fixed. It is trivial.

3. The third point about the angle of the J-20's wings is without merit. I have already written a post to compare the planform alignment of the J-20, F-22, and T-50/Pak-Fa. It is silly to argue for more planform alignment angles on the J-20.

The shape of the main wings is designed to match the aerodynamics of an aircraft. The J-20 has canards and its wing shape is the most appropriate aerodynamically for the aircraft. The guiding design principle is "form follows function" and not why don't you copy design features from other planes.

----------

Explanation of corner reflector (a 90 degree angle):

Illustration of corner reflector on T-50/Pak Fa

For example, let me illustrate why the T-50's uneven underside is not stealthy.

The uneven underside on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype creates a natural 90-degree angle. This allows enemy radar to reflect off the fuselage, bounce off the inside-face of the air-inlet, and return to the transmitter/detector for detection.

----------

Off-topic: Nice try Mr. Somnath. However, this nit-picking won't work. You need to find a major flaw to grab people's attention. The only major flaw on the J-20 is the round engine nozzles. The J-20 engine nozzles are serrated like the F-35, but they are clearly not as stealthy (in both radar and infrared wavelengths) as the F-22.

----------

French Rafale is a very non-stealthy 4th generation fighter

Mr. Somnath picked a terrible example in the French Rafale when he attempted to illustrate a perceived deficiency in the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard design. The French Rafale is not to be emulated in any way in the design of a 5th generation stealth fighter. The round shielding to hide the canard gap is far less stealthy than the J-20 canard's elegant back-end to deflect radar.

 

[gambit]

Another look at T-50/Pak-Fa radar-reflecting back-end of front airfoil gap.

That is dishonest. You pointed to two different locations when the same gap exists for both aircrafts.

 

[ptldM3]

That is dishonest. You pointed to two different locations when the same gap exists for both aircrafts.

Anything new here? He also claimed that the fuselage creates a 90 degree angle, i guess in China a 90 degree angle means something else


If the chum claims that the pak-fa's fuselage is a 'natural 90 degree angle' than this following picture also shows the same in regards to the J-20:



http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/11368202/j202.jpg.html



But of course chumie is going to make some bogus excuses, bend the truth, and re-write physics, but the truth is, if the pak-fa's fuselage presents a corner reflector so does the J-20's vertical stabs and tail fins

 

[Martian2]

That is dishonest. You pointed to two different locations when the same gap exists for both aircrafts.

Try reading the text. That's the reason captions for photographs were invented.

Radar reflects off the back-end of the T-50/Pak-Fa airfoil gap. You want me to point to the junction at the very end? People aren't that stupid. I wanted to highlight the airfoil gap and the difference in the airfoil/canard back-end for the T-50 and J-20.

Another look at T-50/Pak-Fa radar-reflecting back-end of front airfoil gap.

Notice the subtle angled curve of the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard back-end to deflect radar.

Anything new here? He also claimed that the fuselage creates a 90 degree angle, i guess in China a 90 degree angle means something else

Are you blind? Have you never seen the messy underside of a T-50/Pak-Fa? I've said this many times. The different vertical heights of the T-50/Pak-Fa fuselage and airducts create a 90 degree angle or corner.

PtldM3, can you see the 90 degree angle (or corner) in the T-50/Pak-Fa underside now? It's in bright red.

 

[gubbi]

^^^ That thing that you call 'front airfoil' - the correct technical term is a LERX - leading edge root extension - to be employed in extreme maneuvering - very high AoA, or short landing. IIRC not employed during normal flying.

You dont know the correct terms, are unwilling to learn and yet want us to take your anal'lysis seriously? Take a hike dude.

 

[gambit]

Try reading the text. That's the reason captions for photographs were invented.

Radar reflects off the back-end of the T-50/Pak-Fa airfoil gap. You want me to point to the junction at the very end? People aren't that stupid. I wanted to highlight the airfoil gap and the difference in the airfoil/canard back-end for the T-50 and J-20.

People are not that stupid, especially when they have been forewarned by me against the likes of you. You pointed to two different areas and that is dishonest. Fix your sh!t else be considered a deceiver.

 

[ptldM3]

[

Try reading the text. That's the reason captions for photographs were invented.

Radar reflects off the back-end of the T-50/Pak-Fa airfoil gap. You want me to point to the junction at the very end? People aren't that stupid. I wanted to highlight the airfoil gap and the difference in the airfoil/canard back-end for the T-50 and J-20.


Another look at T-50/Pak-Fa radar-reflecting back-end of front airfoil gap.

It’s called camera angle genius, the back of the canard being tilted up gives the elusion that there is an ‘angle’ but other photos of the J-20’s canards prove that there is no such thing. Again its an illusion.

Notice the subtle angled curve of the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard back-end to deflect radar.



Are you blind? Have you never seen the messy underside of a T-50/Pak-Fa? I've said this many times. The different vertical heights of the fuselage and airduct create a 90 degree angle or corner. I'll show you another picture.

So how is a 90 degree corner present when the intake and fuselage are not 90 degrees? If you are trying to imply that the pak-fa’s fuselage is a corner reflector than so is the J-20’s vertical stab’s/tail fins arrangement. You can’t have both, otherwise you contradict your own claim, so which is it?

 

[Martian2]

^^^ That thing that you call 'front airfoil' - the correct technical term is a LERX - leading edge root extension - to be employed in extreme maneuvering - very high AoA, or short landing. IIRC not employed during normal flying.

You dont know the correct terms, are unwilling to learn and yet want us to take your anal'lysis seriously? Take a hike dude.

A LERX is a front airfoil. I can call an aircraft's radar housing as the nose or a radome. Only dummies like you think there is only a single term.

I can refer to a person as a man/woman, human being, homo sapien, person, sentient being, etc. I choose the term that I prefer.

By the way, I think you're a fool.

 

[gambit]

A LERX is a front airfoil. I can call an aircraft's radar housing as the nose or a radome. Only dummies like you think there is only a single term.

I can refer to a person as a man/woman, human being, homo sapien, person, sentient being, etc. I choose the term that I prefer.

By the way, I think you're a fool.

An 'airfoil' is a complete structure. What the PAK has is a leading edge component of the wing.

 

[gubbi]

A LERX is a front airfoil. I can call an aircraft's radar housing as the nose or a radome. Only dummies like you think there is only a single term.

I can refer to a person as a man/woman, human being, homo sapien, person, sentient being, etc. I choose the term that I prefer.

By the way, I think you're a fool.

Lol. You dont know stuff, simple technicalities and want to argue with professionals? You know nothing, you are simply pulling numbers out of Planet Uranus! You are one ignorant tool. And you go the audacity to call someone a fool. Great! ROFL.
People already consider you a tool, how much more low can one really stoop?

 

[Martian2]

[







It’s called camera angle genius, the back of the canard being tilted up gives the elusion that there is an ‘angle’ but other photos of the J-20’s canards prove that there is no such thing. Again its an illusion.

So how is a 90 degree corner present when the intake and fuselage are not 90 degrees? If you are trying to imply that the pak-fa’s fuselage is a corner reflector than so is the J-20’s vertical stab’s/tail fins arrangement. You can’t have both, otherwise you contradict your own claim, so which is it?

Are you seriously that blind. Look at the nearer T-50/Pak-Fa airduct. It is obvious that it extends vertically down below the fuselage. You have a flat mid-body fuselage underside and a vertical airduct that extends beyond it. That forms a 90 degree angle in any geometry class.

Regarding the J-20 vertical stabilizer and ventral fin, if you trace the angle then you'll realize it is an obtuse angle and not 90 degrees.

An 'airfoil' is a complete structure. What the PAK has is a leading edge component of the wing.

A mere technicality. I'm not labeling the photograph with "leading edge component of the wing" gap. If you want to do that, label your own photograph.

By the way, I believe my terminology of an "airfoil" is correct. However, I don't feel like arguing with you all day (which you seem to enjoy doing).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/airfoil?s=t

"air·foil
   [air-foil] Show IPA
noun Aeronautics .
any surface, as a wing, aileron, or stabilizer, designed to aid in lifting or controlling an aircraft by making use of the air currents through which it moves."

 

[ptldM3]

Are you seriously that blind. Look at the nearer T-50/Pak-Fa airduct. It is obvious that it extends vertically down below the fuselage. You have a flat mid-body fuselage underside and a vertical airduct that extends beyond it. That forms a 90 degree angle in any geometry class.

Regarding the J-20 vertical stabilizer and ventral fin, if you trace the angle then you'll realize it is an obtuse angle and not 90 degrees.

Really?

Extends vertically? The pictures prove otherwise:







I don’t see anything vertical, so it is you who is blind. We have concluded that your claim is bogus. If you still want to stick to your failed claim which clearly is debunked with photographic evidence than the J-20 also has a corner reflector.